Can Iraqi's say "no thanks"?

[Peachhead22]

Now that part of the Iraq money may be in the form of a loan, can Iraqi's (the governing council, etc.) say "No thanks, since we'll be billed for it, we'd rather you didn't build that state of the art school, hospital, etc. (with your contractors and inflated prices)"?

I imagine not. But it might be a big PR problem for Shrub if the Iraqi's did do something like that.

[blondeatlast]

1. I like that idea. They have more than proven that they have

the engineering, technical, and architectural know-how to handle it themselves.

I say we owe them, not a loan, but a gift. And gifts, of course, come with NO STRINGS ATTACHED!

[Peachhead22]

4. I disagree

I don't think we should give 'em a gift instead. That wasn't my point. My point is if we didn't break it, we shouldn't fix it. It's just a subsidy for Haliburton, etc. I hope some Iraqi's realize that too, and don't want any part of it.

Let them buy and build their own schools, hospitals, infrastructure. They have enormous oil reserves.

[blondeatlast]

6. In a backwards way, we agree with each other.

I think we owe them money for what we have done to their infrastructure, medical facilities, and archival sites. But if it is given, no strings attached.

I'm not certain that any money given would not benefit Halliburton in some way, either. I'd like to see UN oversight.

On edit: We did, indeed, break it!

[Peachhead22]

9. Not a loan or a gift

Did we bomb/destroy any hospitals or medical facilities? That would be a war crime. I imagine it would have made the news. The media didn't report it, at least not that I saw.

Did we bomb or damage any schools? Not that I heard. That wouldn't have made military sense anyways.

Did we bomb 'em so bad they lost their zip codes?

Did we destroy all their garbage trucks in Baghdad?

Because that's supposedly some of the things Bush wants to build or buy for them.

Did we mangle their infrastructure _that_ bad? I don't think so. That's supposedly what "shock and awe" was all about. Taking out critical people and nodes, while leaving the majority of the infrastructure in place. Their infrastructure is hurting because Saddam neglected it for decades. Not our fault, shouldn't be our problem.

[bif]

2. In a way, the whole thing is so absurd.

We invade them, bomb the shit out of them, then rebuild the country and send them the bill! Could anytning be more Orwellian?

[Jazzgirl]

7. I don't see how we can charge them

for destroying their country. They didn't ask us to come bomb the crap out of their infrastructure and buildings. "We" decided they were an imminent threat to us so "we" attacked them. How can you make somebody pay back a loan to "rebuild" what "we" destroyed? Also, Iraqi's have all the architectural, structural, technical, and most of the materials (lots of cement) to rebuild their country at a fraction of the cost the Halliburton's and Bechtel's are charging. Why not just give them the money to buy what they can't produce and let 'em rebuild it themselves. Not only would this create a ton of jobs but also allow them to rebuild their economy.

Jazzgirl

[blondeatlast]

8. You're the second insightful newbie on the boards this morning!

Welcome to DU, Jazzgirl!

:toast:

[Brucey]

3. They can't say a damn thing... hey,

they're just like us! The 51st state. It doesn't matter what they say or do, Halliburton, et. al. will get the US taxpayer's money. Looting the treasury is now the only thing Bushco seems intent on doing.

[Aidoneus]

5. no, they do not have the right to their own opinions

this is a democracy, silly--the rich foreign businessmen run the show here. duh.